Jari Arkko wrote:
Agree with what John, Brian, and others have said. FWIW, at times
- particularly with documents having some controversy - the ADs are
left wondering what the silent majority is thinking.
I've previously mentioned that I believe the current IESG ballot rules
are insufficient. They should be changed to require a positive confirmation
from *TWO* IESG members, not just one (the latter being the AD who brings
the document to the IESG).
I believe that at least two IESG members should confirm that they believe
publication of a specific document is a good idea. IMO, the current
rules go too far in substituting "rough consensus" by "no objection".
-Martin